9 ms·
Altogether, it was a terrific flight and a big step forward for the Starship program. The biggest success was the survival of stage zero, which bodes well for a
by valine 3y ago
Altogether, it was a terrific flight and a big step forward for the Starship program. The biggest success was the survival of stage zero, which bodes well for a quick turnaround for the next flight.
Hot staging was the second big success, and Starship got to space.
The flight termination was disappointing, but the actual functioning of the FTS system seems to be fixed. That was a problem with the first flight and should make the FAA very happy.
- qiine 3y agoSad we didn't get any shot from the Starship onboard camera during reentry.
- thelittleone 3y agoStarship didn't do re-entry though right? They lost signal, and what happened after that was not explained. It was at the target height and >24,000km/h when it lost signal. Some coverage suggested SECO happened, they they lost signal.
- haarts 3y agoSECO = Second stage Engine CutOff.
- datameta 3y agoAt the conclusion of the SpaceX stream they confirmed the automated launch abort system triggered with vehicle lost. But so much data gained!
- euroderf 3y agoI hope that future mission commanders will never ever let control forget that someone mistakenly kaboomed an upper stage.
- MatthewElvey 3y agoYeah, me too. There were onboard cameras on Starship and Super Heavy. Hopefully they'll release more footage and info over time. Even the first launch had some. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12claay/the_known_onboard_cameras_on_starship_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12claay/the_k.... I recall the during the SpaceX audio commentary of this morning's launch (but perhaps EverydayAstronaut's) it was mentioned that onboard cameras on Starship and Super Heavy would be attempting to communicate via Starlink for the first time.
- sertbdfgbnfgsd 3y agoIsn't reentry supposed to be the hard part? How was this a success?
- chpatrick 3y agoAll of those are very hard.
- valine 3y agoThe largest rocket ever built just got to space for the first time. Even without re-entry this is a milestone. They have a production line to build these things. They’ll roll out the next one and try again. It’s not like SLS where everything is expected to work perfectly.
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- gregjor 3y agoI guess that’s one way to define success or a milestone. The Saturn V used for the Apollo program had different criteria, like not blowing up and having all engines ignite. Now that we have the person who knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive in charge I’m sure these glitches will get sorted out.
- godzillabrennus 3y agoIt’s nice when you have the backing of a super power nation and their blank check to do it vs having shareholders.
- aik 3y agoAmazing the effect competency has when trying to win a blank check away from others.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
- mattsan 3y agoThe second big success was all 33 engines working reliably all the way up! There were so many nay-sayers saying if the soviets could build those amazing engines but couldn't solve their flameout problem on their N-1 rocket that Superheavy was never going to work
- johnyzee 3y agoLooking at that full set of 33 engines burning almost brought a tear to my eye (and the controlled cutoff). That more than anything else tells me they've made it.
- gavinray 3y agoI don't understand what makes the functioning of all the engines so difficult (I know nothing about rockets). How is it that you build something so expensive with so many development resources and expect parts to fail?
- NOT_RICK 3y agoLots of vibration and heat on what is effectively a massive bomb. And more engines means more parts that can potentially break.
- parsimo2010 3y agoIt’s literal rocket science. Liquid fueled rockets have to work in basically the most extreme environments we’ve ever made machines work. Extreme cold temperatures through extreme hot and from extreme high pressures through vacuum. You have to have the best metallurgy and amazing machining tolerances. And then on starship they got it to work more than thirty times simultaneously.
- gavinray 3y agoSure, but if one works, why wouldn't the rest? It's like saying "we built a car engine, but every 33rd car we make the engine doesn't" work. That's not a very good engine. Also, not sure why I am getting downvoted for saying I don't understand something and asking other people how it works.
- slenk 3y agoI don't understand why people are celebrating failed rocket launches. Apollo 4, the first time the full Apollo Saturn V rocket stack was assembled, did not blow up on the first attempt to space. That is something to celebrate. Now wasting millions of government dollars from subsidies, which in the end comes from citizens. We should not be celebrating failure.
- fragmede 3y agoBecause, even in failure, there's progress. "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration" is often attributed to Edison, without whom, we wouldn't have the lightbulb. In order to make progress, you need to try. And if you never fail, you're not trying hard enough. Would it be better if it hadn't failed? Absolutely. But better to try and fail than never try.
- slenk 3y agoWhat bothers me is that they don't even try to succeed. They only want liftoff - they don't seem to care about the ever important orbital aspect
- avhon1 3y agoWhy don't you think they're trying to succeed? They got very close to orbit today, much closer than many prototype rockets do. Just earlier this year, Japan's new rocket also failed to achieve orbit. Its second stage just didn't ignite at all. Starship got closer to orbit than that today. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/the-launch-of-japans-large-new-rocket-fails-after-a-second-stage-problem/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/the-launch-of-japans... The Soviet N1 rocket never even got past first stage separation, in 4 launches. They got closer every time, but after the 4th stage blew up during main engine cut-off, they canceled the program, and never flew a cosmonaut beyond low-earth orbit.
- MatthewElvey 3y agoI think most people don't understand the concept of if you want to succeed, fail faster. It's valid (and explained well and often) but counterintuitive. (And with mundane tasks, it's less applicable, as with them, it's reasonable to expect that when competent people attempt them, they generally get done correctly.)